"Always remember the difference between economic power and political power: You can refuse to hire someone's services or buy his products in the private sector and go somewhere else instead. In the public sector, though, if you refuse to accept a politician's or bureaucrat's product or services you go to jail. Ultimately, after all, all regulations are observed and all taxes are paid at gunpoint. I believe those few who can't even see that have been short-sighted sheep...." ~ Rick Gaber

What's Mine Is Yours--If You Say So

Reading the newspaper this morning, I got the impression that the purpose of the paper is to obscure, rather than present, the news. The front page headline, for instance, was a piece about a local hockey player, and his rise to fame. Succeeding pages concerned local school board problems, and other such trivia. Not until page seven was there any information that might be considered newsworthy, namely NSA activities, and on the next page, reports from Crimea.

What caught my interest, and was, for me, the most interesting bit of news--though far from page one--was the story headlined “Ultra-Orthodox in Israel can be drafted.” It seems that from the very origins of Israel, seminary students could, in the words of the paper, “evade army service.” (Shouldn’t the word be “avoid”?) At that time, only a few hundred young men were involved; now it’s thousands. The Rulers don’t like that, and using their self-bestowed power, have ruled that “ultra-orthodox” young men can be drafted. The point of interest, for me, was the clear and undeniable proof provided by this example that the persons, as well as the property, of individuals are not under their control, but the control of the rulers, to whatever extent they desire.

It reminded me of the story I read years ago: Two men were walking down the street. One had a gold coin in his pocket, the other a flask of whiskey. One was a criminal--the one with the gold coin--the other was not. At a different time, the same two men were walking down the street, one with a gold coin in his pocket, and the other with a flask of whiskey. One was a criminal--the one with the whiskey--and the other was not. The “law” is whatever the strangers say it is, at any given time. But what do the written wishes of the strangers in power have to do with the two men?

Suppose you are seated at one end of a table, and government is seated at the other. Between you lies your wallet, the deed to your home, title to your car, and all other assets you own.

“Does anyone challenge that these are mine--undoubtedly, certainly, absolutely, and genuinely, mine? I own them, do I not?”

No response.

“My claim upon these assets is by virtue of ownership. Mr. Gov, you desire these assets as well, and claim a greater right to them than I have. What is the basis of your claim?”

“Our claim is based upon the law. The statutes say that--”

“Never mind the statutes. You, or someone under you, writes the statutes. They are merely the formal, written declaration of your wants, are they not?”

“The statutes are the written will of the legislature, by definition.”

“Exactly. So when you say that your claim upon my wealth is by virtue of statute, you’re simply saying that you’re entitled to my property because you want it, and have written down that desire.”

“That’s a gross oversimplification.”

“It’s the unvarnished truth, which may be why you disfavor it. But tell me: what do the written desires of your legislators have to do with me?”

“Huh? What do you mean?”

“Your legislators can want anything, and duly inscribe it in the law books. So what? What’s it to me?”

“This is Wonderland, and you’re a resident of Wonderland, so our statutes apply to you.”

“Prove it. What does my physical location have to do with it?”

“It’s obvious. By statute, residents of Wonderland are subject to the laws of Wonderland. That goes without saying.”

“I see. The statutes of Wonderland apply to me, because the statutes of Wonderland apply to me. You don’t see the absurdity of that?”

“It’s basic law. If you live in Wonderland, you are under the authority of Wonderland.”

“So you claim. What is your proof? Do you have a contract which I signed, subjecting myself to you? Do you have witnesses who can testify that they saw and heard me accepting your jurisdiction?”

“Of course not. We have, as I’ve said, the law, which says you are subject to us because the law says so.”

Now, dear reader, how will this end? On one side, we have the owner of the property, whose ownership is unquestioned and unquestionable. On the other hand, we have Mr. Gov, who claims a greater right to the property because he’s written down that he is entitled to it, and that by some ineffable power this transfers ownership of the property from its owner, to Mr. Gov.

It seems open and shut, doesn’t it? The rights of the owner to his property, vs. the assumptions, claims and demands of a stranger. You’d be a fool not to bet on the owner!

Comments

"On one side, we have the owner of the property, whose ownership is unquestioned and unquestionable. On the other hand, we have Mr. Gov, who claims a greater right to the property because he’s written down that he is entitled to it, and that by some ineffable power this transfers ownership of the property from its owner, to Mr. Gov."

Both notions are wrong. Your property, is just the stuff you can prevent others from taking. :-)

It is my observation, Paul, that few indeed can digest your comment. Therefore, not only can they not become free in the here and the now (at least that's the way it appears to me -- but I'm not their judge); but also those same naysayers seem to be chagrined when you or I proclaim freedom in this unfree world. https://lfb.org/mind-blowing-truth-living-free-unfree-world/ Sam

Max Borders and Jeffrey Tucker compiled a list of 99 ways to leave Leviathan:https://fee.org/resources/99-ways-to-leave-leviathan/
Some individuals will take some action to avoid some of the meddlers and plunderers who gather together in that thing called government.
Some people might assume that nobody can “be free” until we’re all free according to one definition of “freedom”; and they might prefer “the slow road of mass education” in an attempt to persuade millions of other people to change their lives.
As Chris Campbell said in ‘The Mind-Blowing Truth of Living Free in an Unfree World’, “you can cut to the core of what freedom means to you and act on that.” But the word “freedom” might then become so subjective that it would convey very little information, so maybe one could say “I am me” instead of saying “I am free”. Thoughts and words are obviously important, but he did suggest that we have to act, which should come as no surprise to most people. As Dan Sanchez said in that article, “You do you” (which reminds me of Buckminster Fuller’s “I seem to be a verb”).

Seems to me they show what a lot of homework the enemy has done. Mr Gov, at the table, can point to all that in-depth preparation, done over centuries. Much of it stems, I dare say, from the stroke of the pen of George III, by which he laid claim to North America, and the Treaty of Paris which transferred his declaration of ownership to the winners of the Revolutionary War.

I don't think, though, that they alter Paul's point. The governmental declaration of ownership may go back deep into history, but it's still a declaration and nothing more. Mr Gov has no more just and moral right of ownership than His Late Majesty; he "owns" it only because he says so, and can enforce his claim.

You asked about a remedy, but within the paradigm that government exists, I see none. There is no hope that they will interpret their rules in our favor. Therefore, the only remedy is for it to evaporate. If you're not on board the program to bring that about yet, join now.

That's Right. George the 3rd was defeated. Than he gets to set the terms of his surrender at the Treaty of Paris, spelling out debts and how much shall be payed to the Monarch himself.

Cornwallis Yorktown surrender statements and Charles march off with all his arms is interesting way for a vanquished foe to 'surrender'. Plus the implementation of the (E)state system of governance brought to you by the King.

The contrast is the comparison of Japan's surrender document to the terms of the Treaty of Paris.

Your delightfully simple scenario, Paul, conceals the fact that behind Mr Gov (or perhaps outside but surrounding the room) stand at his command several Kevlar-covered thugs with an unlimited number if guns, ready to take from you anything and everything you were unwilling to surrender at the table. In other words, Mr Gov is not merely saying "That property is ours because we say so", but also "and if you don't agree, we'll take it by force."

He is therefore revealing and exercising the government view of property: that stuff belongs to whoever can acquire, retain or recover it, forcefully.

That's another way of saying that "might is right" or that "possession equals ownership" - that is, whoever presently has stuff and can forcibly retain it, owns it. The notions of rights to property, of morality, are foreign to that government view.

That ownership and physical possession are two different things, separated by concepts of morality and justice, is not only a fundamental libertarian premise but has antecedents going back centuries, probably millennia. Those who conflate or confuse them are no better than government agents. "Property rights" did not begin with Rothbard, but their denial is a high government priority.

Hearty agreement with your opening statement. The purpose of virtually all newspapers is to obscure, rather than to present, news. To enhance the overall social engineering. I’ve not subscribed for many years. Nor have I owned or watched television, for that reason.

Obfuscation emerges as the primary axiom in the science and practice of rulership.

”…the persons, as well as the property, of individuals are not under their control, but the control of the rulers, to whatever extent they desire.”

Nobody on this forum really questions the fact that the white man has introduced conflicting “laws”, such as would make it “illegal” to possess a flask of whiskey at one time, “legal” at another. Same for gold coin. Anyone who attempts to find a degree of logic or consistency in the white man’s practice of rulership (including his constitutions and his bills of “rights”) will be duly frustrated.

(Those who know me will recognize that I will always use “white man” in lieu of “the-rulers”. They might be your rulers, but they are not my rulers. Many are black as the ace of spades sofar as skin color is concerned. Racism is not my intent).

Am curious about your scenario:

“suppose you are seated at one end of a table, and government is seated at the other..."

Of course, “government” is an abstraction. “It” does not exist. Human beings exist.

So, here I sit. Am I here (sitting at the table with "government") through the trickery called “voluntary compliance”? Or am I sitting with “Mr Gov” (yes, that brainless abstraction) because gentlemen with guns have escorted me here -- under penalty of violence or death were I to resist or refuse the encounter (subpoenaed)?

Because if I volunteered to attend said meeting, knowing and fully understanding the nature of “Mr Gov”, I no doubt deserve to lose “…my wallet, the deed to my home, title to my car, and all other assets I own” sitting out on the table.

Judgment proof status is a primary requisite for freedom in an unfree world.

And if you plan to volunteer, better Jack the Ripper (or your local free-market thug) than “Mr Gov”. Sam